Search

Take a drive through a neighborhood you haven’t visited recently, and you may notice something odd.

Maybe it’s a semi-rural area that hugs an industrial center where your neighbor works: the area with declining property values that seems to be frozen in time, with storefronts that have been shuttered for years and pockets of houses with broken sidewalks.

Or maybe it’s that pretty, winding hillside of older houses that you pass by each morning on the way to the gym, the one framed by green spaces and fast-paced traffic corridors speeding toward the city center.

Park your car and take a stroll through any of these neighborhoods, and you may find something missing – something most Americans assume is a part of everyday life in the 21st century: easily accessible stores.

Yes, there’s likely a corner store at the main intersection that features canned food and deli slices. Or there may be a full-service grocery store a few miles away, which amounts to a 30-minute round trip or more by bus.

But for some 23 million Americans, getting to a store for fruits, vegetables and other fresh foods can be a problem if they don’t have a vehicle. Researchers commonly refer to such neighborhoods as “food deserts.” These areas aren’t necessarily economically depressed, either.

Although nearly half of those 23 million residents live below the poverty line, a lack of access to nearby stores that have adequate nutritional foods exists at every strata of the population -- and in just about every city, from the economically struggling downtown quarter to the semi-affluent suburbs. And not surprisingly, food deserts dominate rural areas that are stitched together by small towns, country farms and few stores in between.

Changing Americans’ access to healthy nutrition and replacing those food deserts with well-stocked stores starts at the local level, says Dr. Garth Graham, president of the nonprofit Aetna Foundation, which each year provides funding to local stakeholders that can find new ways to improve health equity in their neighborhoods.

That funding comes in many forms -- from nationwide competitions to incentivize cities and counties to start grassroots initiatives, to providing grants, guidance and technology information to help small businesses with big ideas succeed.

Or it may involve funding technological and medical research that has the potential to revolutionize how we age and how we heal.

Aetna Foundation: Healthy cities, sustainable businesses

One of the Foundation’s more popular initiatives is its Healthiest Cities and Counties Challenge, which dares cities, counties, and Native American tribes to find new and unexpected ways to combat issues like obesity, declining life expectancy and other challenges in their communities.

Entrants must not only demonstrate ways their community can benefit from the initiative, but also offer “replicable strategies” with measurable and demonstrable results.

The top 50 finalists receive seed funding of $10,000, adding up to $1.5 million in prize money over the next several years. Winners are challenged to combine the cash with other community funding sources to accomplish their goals.

The 50 finalists include communities like Perris, California, which sees community gardens, healthy eating and education as important links to creating “health equity” in the city. Hillsborough County, Florida, near Tampa Bay, sees small community gardens as the key to increase both residential access to fresh food and healthy walking and biking for able-bodied residents.

Other contestant cities like Miami see improving healthcare access for low-income residents and individuals struggling with substance abuse as the way to increase health equity in its Little Havana neighborhood.

The Healthiest Cities and Counties Challenge is intended to "recognize and incentivize cities and counties that are doing innovative things on the ground to address social determinants of health,” Dr. Graham told 3p. “Our goal is to work with those locations that are most committed to improving not just the physical health but the social problems throughout the city.”

The Foundation emphasizes the use of evidence-based models, Dr. Graham told us, because its experts believe the path to improving healthy living is ensuring successful local initiatives can be duplicated in other communities.

“And to do that, it has to be based in evidenced-based infrastructure that is both effective and replicable,” he explained.

Startups and technology

The same is true for the small businesses the Aetna Foundation works with in its Innovation in Underserved Communities Funding program. The Foundation has been known to grant funding to small businesses that can demonstrate constructive ways to weaken the impact of America’s food deserts. Concepts like the EatFresh website, developed by Leah’s Pantry, work to not only address food inequity issues, but also language obstacles in growing cities.

Incentivizing change “is really about lowering the barriers of entry so people who are existing locally can enter the marketplace,” Dr. Graham told us. That includes taking into account the local, and sometimes hidden, language and cultural barriers that can keep a business and its potential consumers from connecting.

“There are a lot of people who have the ability to make these things on a personal or a macro basis but have challenges commercializing it, even locally,” explained Graham. “We work with a number of grantees that use innovative technologies like cell phone technology to allow them to accept not only credit cards but food stamps. ... Those are the kinds of things we believe are important.”

Another area where technology plays into the organization’s impact funding is in health care. The ARMstrokes app, funded with the help of the Aetna Foundation, provides recovery support and guidance for individuals who are working to regain movement or abilities that were impaired by a stroke.

“[We] are focusing on helping and training folks in both stroke recovery and in identifying key aspects, both clinical and non-clinical, that lead to better outcomes,” Dr. Graham told 3p.

Asked what the common denominator is when deciding what type of community initiative or business would benefit the best from its investment, he said the foundation “aligns our dollars more with our mission and impact.” When it comes to impact investing and philanthropy, it's all about deciding what you are ultimately trying to accomplish and staying true to both the goal and the desired impact, he explained.

“Many times with investing, you can go an inch deep and very wide. We prefer to go very deep within geographic areas and [not just] in terms of location but topic areas,” Dr. Graham said, adding that the Foundation looks to not only what is relevant to the company, but to its employee base as well. "We have found that impact investing and investing where we can measure our [effect] appropriately has been the most beneficial.”

Employee enthusiasm is a valuable asset

And taking into consideration what the local employee base feels is particularly important, Dr. Graham explained, especially when trying to inspire engagement in the values and interests the organization is attempting to bring to the community.

“What we have found is employees have a natural passion in their work lives. So tapping into the things that really matter to the company or foundation’s workers means increased desire to be a part of the organization and its accomplishments."

When it's all said and done, acting locally “but thinking globally” is what has allowed Aetna Foundation to provide its best support in communities in need, Dr. Graham said. And the grants it affords to underserved neighborhoods will likely impact these communities for years to come, as they forge their own paths to success and share best practices with their neighbors to ensure healthier communities for all.

Image credit: Pixabay

For months, President Donald Trump vowed to "cancel" the United States’ participation in the Paris climate accord. The new president shared his thoughts about international agreements in campaign stump speeches, late-night tweets and White House press statements. He said the Paris agreement specifically gives "foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use" and, in his opinion, is "bad for U.S. business."

But while Trump may still have his reservations about whether an international commitment to lower carbon emissions is a good thing for the country, a growing number of companies and analysts are encouraging him to stay his hand – and keep America in Paris.

Paris climate accord: Big business speaks up

And they aren’t exclusively small businesses, either. Energy leaders like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP, which would appear to have more to lose than to gain economically from a climate accord, are now speaking up and encouraging Trump to keep a seat at the negotiations table.

“U.S. leadership could take the world into a new era of global economic prosperity that also addresses concerns about climate and emissions,” Colin Marshall, president of Cloud Peak Energy, wrote in a recent letter to the president.

Although Marshall seems fine with less aggressive commitments from the U.S.: “By remaining in the Paris agreement, albeit with a much different pledge on emissions, you can help shape a more rational international approach to climate policy.”

For their part, BP, Exxon and Shell say that with the increasing access to natural gas, the U.S. would be better off turning its sights toward resources and policies that help reduce carbon emissions.

“[We] believe it’s possible to provide the energy the world needs while also addressing the climate challenge,” BP spokesperson Geoff Morrell wrote in an email.

Not all companies are supportive of this approach, however. Robert Murray, founder of Murray Energy, said companies backing U.S. participation in the climate deal are “squandering” the country’s opportunity to “low-cost” power generation.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration said it was keeping an “open mind” toward whether to stay in the Paris accord. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, her husband Jared Kushner (an advisor to the president) and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly urging the president to stay in the agreement. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and Trump’s senior advisor Steve Bannon feel the country should exit.

Last week, members of the G-7 signaled a hopeful gesture that the U.S. may still decide to participate in the Paris accord when they delayed offering the customary joint statement at the end of their two-day meeting. The media blamed the U.S. for “scuttling” the G-7's talk on climate change, which members normally conclude with a joint affirmation. U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said the U.S. is still “reviewing” its policies regarding climate change and has not yet said whether it will join in the statement.

Campaign promises, presidential realities

If Trump accepts the energy companies' advice and chooses to stay at the table, it will signal yet another change for an administration that won electoral votes at the polls based on his promises to stand up for big business.

Ironically, though, it’s those very businesses that are able to see the value in international cooperation and in keeping an ear at a table that could very well determine tomorrow’s markets.

And those who are advocating for staying in the accord know that canceling U.S. participation isn’t going to slow global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. It will only ensure that the U.S., once a leader in this effort, isn’t consulted.

"Europe will now be looking to China to make sure that it is not alone," an EU official told Reuters last February when Trump was entertaining dropping out of the accord.

That’s an idea that would be hard to stomach for an administration that knows its top competitor in renewable energy could ultimately become the go-to for global energy policies.

For Trump, however, the Paris climate accord represents yet another portion of a huge first-term learning curve. Campaign promises and bold statements may sound great to potential voters, but according to his biggest supporters, it’s the solid strategies that allow countries to get along peaceably together that may work out the best for everyone.

Wikimedia image: Donald Perovich/US Army

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have been slow to catch on compared to their battery-operated cousins. Now, all of a sudden it looks like we'll have a chance to see how the competition plays out in the heavy-duty truck sector.

Last week Elon Musk pitched a new all-electric truck for Tesla. And this week Toyota announced Project Portal, a fuel cell truck feasibility study at the Port of Los Angeles.

Game on!

Toyota and Project Portal

Fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles. Instead of storing all of their electricity in a big battery pack, they combine hydrogen with oxygen to generate electricity on the go. They still need a battery (so does a gasmobile, for that matter), but it is far smaller and lighter.

Battery EVs are catching on more quickly, helped along by the marketing genius of Elon Musk.

However, fuel cells seem ready for their closeup.

Toyota is a leading early adopter of fuel cell EVs with its Mirai passenger car. Last fall, the automaker upped the ante with an aggressive new ad campaign and has been working with other stakeholders to build a network of hydrogen fuel stations. Last year it introduced fuel cell buses in Japan, too.

Toyota has also begun planning ahead for a sustainable hydrogen economy. Last year it launched a demo project in two coastal cities in Japan that uses wind power to produce hydrogen by "splitting" water. (The main source of hydrogen is still natural gas.) The renewable hydrogen is used locally to power fuel cell forklifts.

Project Portal translates Toyota's fuel cell know-how into the heavy-duty trucking sector.

It's part of a larger, ongoing project aimed at cutting emissions at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Called the Clean Air Action Plan, this effort has been under way since 2005 and has already made significant progress.

One sticking point, though, is the continued use of diesel trucks at the port. The Action Plan's Clean Truck program has been effective, but according to the Port of Los Angeles, drayage trucks are still the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions. They also come in near the top for particulates and other targeted pollutants.

Clean Truck or no Clean Truck, the drayage load at both ports clocks in at 19,000 containers every day, a staggering volume that accounts for the persistence of high emissions.

A real hydrogen fuel cell truck

Toyota and the Port of Los Angeles are not messing around. The new truck will be expected to meet or beat the performance of conventional Class 8 diesel trucks, which are in the heavy-duty category.

This sounds about right:

"The truck generates more than 670 horsepower and 1325 pound feet of torque from two Mirai fuel cell stacks," Toyota said of the vehicle. "The concept's gross combined weight capacity is 80,000 pounds, and its estimated driving range is more than 200 miles per fill, under normal drayage operation."

Aside from eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, the new fuel cell truck could outperform conventional trucks on acceleration and other markers.

Thumbs up for the new truck

Battery EVs used to get the bum's rush from Rush Limbaugh and other conservative pundits, and Republican legislators continue to throw up obstacles to widespread EV adoption.

So far, though, Toyota seems to have the automotive media on its side. Its press release announcing the new truck is all over the Intertubes.

Trucks.com got a sneak peek and created a time-lapse video of Project Portal and how the new truck moved from drawing board to prototype.

Road Show gave zero-emission technology a manly thumbs up with this headline: "Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell truck is the strong silent type."

Motor1 let pictures do all the talking, with an 11-shot photo gallery featuring the new truck on the open road against a dramatic sunset.

What about that "other" electric truck?

Toyota better act fast if it wants to corner the zero-emission, heavy-duty truck market in the U.S. A startup called Nikola Motor Co. is already in partnership with trucking company Ryder for an ambitious project that includes a network of renewable hydrogen stations.

Meanwhile, last week Elon Musk's Twitter account twitched out the following bare bones message:

"Tesla Semi truck unveil set for September. Team has done an amazing job. Seriously next level."

That touched off a firestorm of speculation. Wired enthused over the potentials, pointing out that the sheer size of a semi enables it to carry a heavy load of batteries to provide for a hefty range.

Jack Stewart of Wired puts the range in the neighborhood of 300 miles. That's not nearly enough for long-distance hauling, but it could easily put a Tesla semi to work at seaports and other urban areas.

Yep, game on.

Photo (cropped): courtesy of Toyota.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Could Vermont spark a carbon tax trend? State legislators say a recent flurry of carbon tax proposals are more “conversation starters” than a drive to change policy, but policy shifts have to start somewhere.

This year’s legislative session included a motion to launch a study to assess the viability of a statewide cap-and-trade program; another fee proposal to tax carbon in order to fund the state’s education system; a proposal to eliminate the state sales tax and replace with it a carbon fee on corporations; and a carbon tax that would pay a dividend to many of Vermont’s businesses and its 630,000 residents.

The carbon tax-and-dividend was proposed by state Rep. Diana Gonzalez, whose district lies in the northwest part of the state just south of the Canadian border. In an interview with a local business publication, she said:

“Climate change is real, and it’s scary, but there’s hope if we work together to solve it. The bills we introduced today are not bound by party labels. They could work singly or together, but they all move Vermont towards a more prosperous clean energy future.”

Gonzalez said her bill is modeled after a carbon tax-and-dividend proposal introduced by GOP elders, including George Shultz and James Baker. That idea, presented at the White House in February, recently scored the endorsement of James Hansen, who is widely regarded as the “father” of climate change science and awareness.

Another Vermont state representative, Martin LaLonde, introduced a similar carbon tax proposal during this year’s legislative session.

LaLonde’s bill would remove the burden of funding schools from property taxpayers and onto polluting companies. While many Vermonters are reliant on home heating oil during the state’s frigid winter months, LaLonde and other legislators point out that Donald Trump’s emphasis on revitalizing the coal industry will do nothing for their state.

State representatives supporting these proposals also argue carbon fees could accelerate the adoption of clean-energy technologies that could create jobs, lower energy bills and reduce carbon emissions.

And they say Trump’s shifting of budget and energy priorities requires Vermont to completely revamp its tax code. In addition, supporters of these carbon tax initiatives point out that a carbon fee implemented a decade ago, with the support of then-Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, helped reduce pollution while spurring economic growth.

Their proposals, however, would face stiff opposition from Vermont’s governor. Phil Scott, a Republican elected last November, has made it clear since his campaign that he opposes energy taxes or fees in any form.

And as these bills were recently introduced in the state capital of Montpelier, Scott again said the proposals would go nowhere and claimed they would make the cost of living more expensive for Vermonters. Scott’s environmental proposals, in contrast, are limited to a two-week sales tax holiday for energy-efficient products as well as hybrid and electric vehicles.

Furthermore, a free-market think tank based in Vermont, the Ethan Allen Institute, has slammed any carbon tax proposals as misleading and just another ploy to redistribute wealth.

Nevertheless, watch for two proposals to become central to policy debates over the next decade: a carbon tax as well as a universal basic income. As automation replaces more jobs and leaders realize the challenges and opportunities climate change present, we could very see a convergence of both ideas in the near future.

Image credit: Jim Bowen/Flickr

Big pharma companies let out a collective sigh of relief earlier this week when two federal judges blocked Arkansas from carrying out an unprecedented string of eight executions over an 11-day period. The companies, pressuring Arkansas to return the medications to be used in the lethal injections, recognize the public-relations implications of using their drugs on death row.

McKesson, a massive drug distributor, said the state had obtained the lethal drugs improperly. The company said Arkansas promised to give the drug back to McKesson but then refused to return it. Arkansas officials, however, wrote in a filing to the Supreme Court, “McKesson willingly sold a drug to the [Arkansas Department of Corrections] and then experienced seller’s remorse.”

The state acquired midazolam, one of the three drugs it intends to use on its series of executions, in 2015. But the drug is set to expire at the end of the month -- hence the hurry.

Midazolam isn’t clear from controversy. In 2014, it was the headlining drug responsible for Oklahoma’s botched execution of Clayton Lockett. The lethal injection drug also prolonged executions in Ohio, Arizona and Alabama, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to vote on the legality of the drug in executions. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled the drug did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Before the feds federal stay, Arkansas was on its way to carrying out its first execution in 12 years -- and then give seven encore executions, in an odd order that would buck the nationwide trend of decreasing death penalties. In 2016, the 20 executions in the United States represented the fewest in the country in 25 years. The peak of 98 executions in 1999 was met with tighter court restrictions.

The Washington Post reported that Arkansas officials support their decision to squeeze eight executions into a tight schedule, saying delaying the deaths would deny justice for the victims’ loved ones. That seems precarious coming from a state void of executions in the last dozen years. All eight of the men facing executions were sentenced by 2000 of committing capital murder. One of the eight executions was stayed after judge listened to the parole board’s suggestion of upholding the man’s life sentence.

In 2016, pharma giant Pfizer followed in the footsteps of 20 drug companies already adopting restrictions against using their products in lethal injections. Pfizer’s announcement paved the way for massive obstacles from states seeking drugs for executions.

“Executing states must now go underground if they want to get hold of medicines for use in lethal injection,” Maya Foa of Reprieve told the New York Times last year. And the majority of the 32 states with capital punishment have “imposed secrecy around their drug sources,” wrote Erik Eckhold of the Times. 

“The secrecy is not designed to protect the manufacturers, it is designed to keep the manufacturers in the dark about misuse of their products,” Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, told the paper.

In Arkansas, where the drug companies' role in the potential executions is out for the public to see, they are lashing back and demanding the drugs to be returned. As the Washington Post reported, it’s not even clear how Arkansas got the drugs in the first place, or if they even have them at all. The state’s secrecy laws prohibit the companies from knowing how the drugs were obtained.

While the executions are on stay in Arkansas, the state said it will fight back from the ruling.

Image credit: ZaldyImg/Flickr

The words "startup" and "diversity" historically have not worked well together. In fact, if you perform a Google search using those words, you will see a plethora of blogs and news stories about the lack of diversity within startups across the country.

Like most change, there needs to be a conversation first, and that's no different in the startup community. The lack of diversity in the workplace is well known because people are talking about it. The next step is to do something about it. Here are a few examples of startups working on diversity-focused services.

Recruiting services

For many small business owners, managing employees is a bit of a wake-up call. It certainly is not easy managing a diverse staff of workers. One of the keys is assembling a diverse workforce in the first place, and, to that end, there are a few startups available to help.

One is Jopwell, which describes itself as a career advancement platform for black, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American students and professionals. A number of big-name companies have used its services, including the New York Times, Microsoft, Facebook and Godman Sachs.

The goal is simple: Connect top companies with talented candidates from the most underrepresented minority groups.

Another similar startup is Teamable, which strives to help companies hire "the right teammates for every team." The company's website features a helpful blog that includes posts about trends in recruiting and talent management.

Salary analysis

A good way to check the level of diversity and inclusion at your startup is to analyze what your employees are making compared to other companies in your industry.

The startup PayScale can do just that. The company analyzes employee compensation across a vast number of industries, so workers can get an idea of how much money they should be making.

The company fosters diversity with a tool that helps employers check for any gender wage gaps at their company. They can examine whether female employees are making less than males and whether they hold a proportionate number of top-paying positions.

While the tool is helpful, the company itself recognizes that no online tool or service can make startups more diverse or inclusive. It's a good complementary apparatus, but employers themselves are ultimately responsible for how diverse their companies are.

Startup accelerators

In theory, the diversity problem among startups should not last long. In response to the issue, there are a number of startup accelerator programs looking to boost diversity.

For example, the city of Memphis has a good number of accelerator programs, focused on a wide variety of industries. One such accelerator is called Propel, a partnership between Start Co. and the city of Memphis Office of Business Diversity and Compliance. The effort has mentorship and other programs and resources designed to promote and support minority startup owners.

Similarly, the Los Angeles-based nonprofit group FourthWave has launched what it calls a "female tech entrepreneur catalyst program," an accelerator that looks to boost ethnic and gender diversity in cities including Sacramento. The outfit seeks startups with high values of inclusion toward those from various backgrounds.

A quick gaze at startups across the country shows a clear lack of diversity in many industries, including the tech sector. The problem is real, but there are reasons to be encouraged.

First, the conversation is ongoing, and the more the better. The more people hear and learn about the problem, the easier it will be for them to do something about it.

A number of startups are aimed at helping fellow startups boost their diversity, as well as accelerator programs targeting underrepresented business owners. Change won't come quickly, but it's a good start to tackling a lingering problem.

Image via: Pexels

By Gregory Craig

Think back 10 years. If someone said that you’d have a tiny supercomputer in your pocket that could summon a handyman, late-night guacamole or a virtual key to unlock your door, would you believe them? Probably not. Ten years from now, we’ll probably look back and think: How did I manage without my personal robot cooking breakfast and delivering it on a hoverboard to my bed?

Technology is rapidly facilitating a jump to a Jetsons-esque age of the “smart home.” Today, we have a few tricks at our disposal – from turning on your lights with your voice to syncing your alarm clock with your coffee pot. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Gartner Research predicts that by 2020, there will be approximately 25 billion “smart” (Internet-connected) devices, millions of which will be used to help consumers automate their homes.

The home of the future will offer not only unprecedented levels of convenience and productivity, but also change the way we use — and even generate — our energy. We’ve already made great progress in how we power our homes and businesses through clean energy generation and deploy smart devices that help us better monitor and control our energy usage and cost. And the future looks even brighter. Let’s take a quick look at the past, present and exciting future ahead for energy.

Energy’s evolution

For more than 100 years, we relied on big, centralized power plants that burned dirty fossil fuels like coal or gas to generate our electricity. This electricity was carried to us often over long distances by way of a grid of interconnected power lines running to your home. Ok, let’s give it some credit. While not perfect, this complex system is one of the most important and impressive engineering feats of the modern era.

But since the days of Tom Edison, our demand for electricity has exploded. Modern comforts like air conditioning, heating, dishwashers and refrigerators suck up a ton of power – and consequently, fossil fuels. It’s no wonder that electricity production has become the No. 1 source of greenhouse gas emissions.

And demand will just keep increasing. Take the electric vehicle for example. Plugging one in is, in some cases, the equivalent of adding an entire house to the grid. Your grandfather’s power grid was not ready for that. During demand peaks, balancing the grid’s energy supply with demand becomes an acute challenge.

But thanks to advancements in technology, we’re making serious progress toward a more efficient and sustainable energy system. Here are three examples of what’s changing the game of electricity:

The grid is getting smart

Smart grids bring technologies that work with the electrical grid to respond digitally to our quickly changing electric demand. They represent an evolution to 21st-century electricity delivery.

For example, utility companies historically sent workers out to physically gather the data necessary to provide electricity. These workers would read meters, look for broken equipment and measure voltage… then return to the utility, make adjustments, send you a paper bill… talk about inefficient!

A key feature of the smart grid is the smart meter. If you live in Texas, Florida, California, and a growing number of other states, you might already have one. These gadgets actively feed utility companies mounds of data on everything from usage to outages. Unlike traditional meters that only measure total consumption, smart meters can tell you when energy is consumed (during certain intervals), allowing you to see how much electricity you use, when you use it and its cost. This kind of information is golden when it comes to adjusting your own electrical use to save money—but only if you have access to it. More on that later.

Deregulation is bringing disruption

In recent years, a number of states like Texas have begun to break the long tradition of monopoly in the energy industry. By changing the regulations, these states have opened the doors beyond one single supplier to a free marketplace, allowing customers a choice in where they purchase power. This deregulation has conjured a range of energy suppliers offering different rates, experiences, and options for greener energy.

However, deregulation hasn’t exactly delivered on its promise of better service and lower cost. One intended benefit of a competitive marketplace was competitive rates. But the free market opened the floodgates for the dark horses of capitalism to run amok with hundreds of nearly indecipherable plans and rate structures. Many retail energy providers (REPs) came onto the scene, introducing hidden fees that amounted to costing consumers up to hundreds of dollars.

Still, there is hope! Deregulation can also allow for new, disruptive business models to be introduced. It’s only a matter of time until the next generation of consumer-friendly energy providers take the stage.

The energy we can feel good about

The days of dirty coal combustion are dwindling. Recently, the CEO of Michigan’s largest utility declared it will retire nearly all of its coal plants by 2030. And this dynamic is playing out all over the country. Instead, renewable energy is quickly becoming the economic choice for electricity. Clean energy sources, particularly solar and wind, are allowing us to capture ever abundant energy in ways that are increasingly cost-effective and in-demand.

As utilities abandon coal in favor of cleaner-burning natural gas and zero-emission renewables, greenhouse gas emissions from power plants are plummeting. Experts estimate that US power plants are now on track to emit 27 percent less carbon dioxide in 2016 than they did in 2005.

This is helping shift us to more sustainable energy generation. Thanks to advances in technology, we’re now able to reliably integrate large amounts of solar and wind energy into the grid and dramatically offset the need for fossil fuels. In Texas, for example, just months ago, wind supplied a record-breaking 41 percent of the state’s electricity on one day.

The bottom line

These three trends have set the table for energy’s transformation. And some of the newest advances in technology indicate momentum is only going to pick up. Watch this space for the second installment of this special two-part blog series that will focus on what’s in store for the future of energy. Exciting developments await!

Gregory L. Craig is a 25-year energy industry veteran and the founder and CEO of Griddy, a next-generation energy company that launched today. He is also the founder of PowerToConfuse.org.

A new battle is brewing over President Donald Trump’s proposed “border wall,” this time about the impact it could have on the environment.

Scientists are raising concerns about the administration’s planned wall, which Trump has incrementally increased in height as the months of debate drew on. In February he suggested the wall should be around 55 feet, tall enough to be “physically imposing” and a deterrent to the flow of migrants and illicit drugs across the border, he said.

But while many experts doubt whether a concrete wall will really stem all illicit entries from Mexico, there’s plenty of research to show that a 30- to 60-foot wall could be devastating  for thousands of wildlife species that make their homes along the two nations’ boundary.

“[The] 654 miles of walls and fences already on the US-Mexico border have made a mess out of the environment there,” wrote Eliza Barclay and Sarah Frostenson of Vox Media. They’ve not only increased the demand for roads through ecologically sensitive areas but heightened climate risks like floods.

They have also impeded the flow of species native to the Sonoran Desert, which not only occupies parts of Mexico, California and Arizona, but made it harder for species like the endangered leopard to survive.

So last week the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Rep. Raúl Graijalva (D-Ariz.) announced they had filed a lawsuit  against the Trump administration stating that it is required by law to order an environmental impact assessment before initiating construction of the wall.

Construction of the concrete wall, which is already in the planning stages by the Department of Homeland Security, won’t just increase carbon emissions, experts say, but require even more roads, vehicles, foot traffic and monitoring along the 2,000-mile border than ever before. The wall is currently estimated to cost $22 billion. Approximately $1.4 billion of that has already been secured by Trump to launch the project.

Graijalva said that while the project has been spearheaded by Trump as a campaign promise, it’s Congress that should be expecting environmental risks to have been evaluated and addressed before approving money for the project.

"[At] the end of the day, it’s Congress that appropriates the money, and it behooves Congress to want an independent analysis to look at all the consequences before we throw money down a rabbit hole,” said Graijalva.

“Trump’s border wall will divide and destroy the incredible communities and wild landscapes along the border,” Kieran Suckling, CBD’s founder said, noting that animals rarely observe national boundaries and could be put at risk if they are unable to range and hunt for food.

Laws empowering DHS to construct security measures like fencing and walls along the nation’s 700 miles of land-locked border have grown increasingly stronger in recent years. Amendments to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) after the 9-11 attacks have given DHS the ability to “waive all legal requirements” that could interfere with the construction of barriers meant to increase safety to the US borders.

But it doesn’t absolve the DHS of doing due diligence when it comes to evaluating the environmental impacts, say Suckling and Graijalva.

The Center for Biological Diversity argues that there have been many changes to security measures along the border in recent years, and an EIA is needed before a border of this magnitude is planned.

The DHS on the other hand, is sticking to the premise that previous amendments give it the power to erect the barrier as it sees fit and expeditiously, without judicial or environmental review. That’s a concern, for some, says the Congressional Research Service, which published a report on the legality of Trump’s wall.

“The scope of this waiver authority is substantial with some observers describing it as possibly having greater reach than any other waiver authority conferred by statute – leading some to express concern over its breadth and the limited scope of judicial review available for waiver decisions,” wrote Michael Garcia, Acting Section Research Manager of the Congressional Research Service (pp. 22-23).

And while this waiver was not written with the intention of circumventing environmental laws, says the report, “the waiver potentially could be employed with respect to any other existing legal requirement – provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security concluded that compliance with the requirement would impede expeditious construction of barriers and roads.” Garcia pointed out that waivers under Section 2 (c) of the IIRIRA have successfully circumvented state and federal laws that could conceivably slow down DHS’s mandated responsibility.

The report doesn't directly address environmental impact assessments, but it does note that DHS' power to waive legal requirements is broad -- and legislation enacted by Congress may be the only real impediment to preventing Trump's plan to build a US-Mexico border wall.

"If Congress disagrees with DHS’s implementation of the fencing man date under Section 102(b), it would likely need to enact legislation to modify or clarify the fencing requirements found in current statute," the report stated (pg. 25).

Suckling points out that this lawsuit constitutes the 10^th suit to have been lodged against the Trump administration since it took office. Whether it will actually be able to force the DHS to order an EIA is yet to be seen. Recent reports of environmental problems stemming from washed out border fencing and other constructs put in place to secure the US-Mexico border would likely offer some weight to the argument that America’s efforts to secure its boundaries must be done with current residents and environmental impacts in mind.

Wikimedia Images: Staff Sgt. Scott Tynes/US National Guard; Tom Smylie/US Fish and Wildlife Service (Public Domain)

“National Parks would be left untouched; I’m not going to build a mall in Yosemite,” gubernatorial hopeful Zoltan Istvan assured me, explaining his plan to fund a universal basic income for all Californians.

He believes development of public lands is the best way to solve the economic crisis of the rich getting richer while the poor grow poorer. And he claims it could bring a paycheck worth almost $60,000 a year to all Californians.

Universal basic income (UBI) is often touted as solution to poverty and a way to soften the blow automation brings to an evolving economy. It's not just a liberal utopian pipe dream; some conservative intellectuals and economists endorse this idea as well. Many argue that a basic income would not only lift people out of poverty, but it could also save governments money in the long run by eliminating social programs.

The idea is to simply give constituents a monthly check to cover their basic needs. Communist heresy? Maybe not.

Capitalism at its most basic is this: Workers provide labor in exchange for money they can use to buy goods and services produced by other laborers. But what if automation reduces the number of jobs we really need? And constraints on natural capital limit the number of goods we can produce? The government could offer grants to keep the wheels of the economy moving.

Some economists counter that such talk is merely Silicon Valley claptrap: a leisure-induced utopia that only sounds good in theory.

But Zoltan Istvan, a former journalist and current real estate developer, thinks George McGovern was on to something with his “Demogrant” proposal.

Istvan is running for governor of California as a Libertarian on a platform of universal basic income. He proposes funding this program through leasing California public lands -- the coastline in particular.

Earlier this week, TriplePundit spoke with Istvan by telephone to learn a little more about his candidacy and his big idea, which goes against decades of political convention on the nature of work.

To Istvan, the logic behind his proposal is simple: “Like the Titanic, capitalism is sinking, but few passengers are wondering yet if there are enough lifeboats.” A UBI could provide that safety net before this ship sinks, or before social upheaval foments due to the lack of job opportunities.

According to Istvan’s math, 45 percent of California’s land mass is government-owned, with much of it sitting undeveloped. Assuming that land was worth a middling estimate of $15 trillion, if 75 percent of that land was leased, the payout to each household would be almost $5,000 a month – or about $57,500 annually: enough to transform the lives of the approximately 40 percent of Californians who live near or below the poverty line.

Compare that figure to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) which, according to its own data, generated about $74 billion in revenues in 2015. Had those funds been funneled directly to American families, 126 million households would have scored about $600 a year.

That figure does not include the lands leased by other divisions of the Department of Interior, but there is still a huge difference between Istvan’s numbers and what the BLM reaps each year. So what’s going on?

“Remember that the BLM has a government mandate to preserve federal lands,” Istvan said. “It’s not as if we have a bunch of capitalists making money off of these public lands. Those running BLM don’t have a mandate allowing them do anything with the land, as conservation is a huge priority for them.”

But what lands would be leased out to private enterprise? After all, some lands -- including areas of the Owens Valley, northeastern regions of the state such as the Modoc Plateau and the Mojave Desert -- are too isolated to easily develop.

Istvan says the real money lies in California’s coast, which he believes should be open to development.

He said that during a recent drive to Santa Cruz along Highway 101, it hit him once again that the stunning seashore could be used to facilitate economic growth. Instead, much of that land is controlled by the California Coastal Commission, which he said was analogous to a “crime syndicate.” That tight control of the land exacted by government agencies, from Istvan’s point of view, is coming at the price of denying many Californians the economic opportunities they deserve.

“Having been a real estate developer, I can tell you it’s almost impossible to build along the coast,” he said. The result has been the tripling of home prices in areas open for development.

“We’re sitting on hundreds of thousands of acres, worth $500 billion to a trillion dollars,” Istvan insisted, “and that’s land that could hit the market in one to five years. We just don’t have any more oceanfront property going to market.”

I asked Istvan if he was comfortable saying publicly that more of the California coast should be primed for development, and he gave an unequivocal yes.

Therein lies one of the largest challenges for his campaign to gain traction: To many of the state’s residents and politicians, the idea of turning wide open areas of California coast into cities and housing developments is a non-starter.

Istvan made it clear that if he were to be elected governor, such reforms would not happen overnight. After all, the federal government will not quickly relinquish control of the lands it manages to the Golden State.

Then there are the stubborn realities of economics. “Could you put this all land up for sale immediately?” he asked rhetorically. “No, because prices would plummet, as there would be too much supply on the market.”

Just as the automation of the American economy would not occur overnight, Istvan sees his agenda as a step-by-step, incremental process. “Yes, my numbers are pretty optimistic, but they aren’t painting the whole picture,” he explained. “I would try to implement this process over time. Let’s take, say 10 percent of these lands at first, and see who wants to lease it. After two or three years, if these lands generate the revenues we want, we can then look at other lands.”

Istvan made it clear that there would be careful stewardship of these lands, and attempted to negate any outcry from environmentalists from the onset. “We’re not going to have some Chinese company just come in and ravage the land for pure profit,” he said.

But he also noted that one problem with public lands is that many people simply do not have the time, or money, to visit these areas for their recreational and sightseeing opportunities. But with a UBI, people would have more time to visit such places – and therein lies another example of an economic multiplier he said could take off if a guaranteed income were made available to all citizens.

Rather than shy away from the downsides of developing California's treasured coast, he insists the alternative is worse. Absent government intervention, automation will march on, leading to fewer jobs and greater poverty. A basic income, paid for by the development of  publicly owned land, would actually free people of the financial stresses that hold them back. Without the need to struggle for minimum wage, the population can be transformed into more productive and happier citizens.

“As a libertarian, it’s not my business to tell people what to do,” continued Istvan, “but what I want to do is make it clear that we don’t have to have poverty in America, and that we can give everybody the opportunity that they seek, including education or starting a business.” And along with that steady stream of cash, many of California’s social programs, and the administrators that run them, would no longer be necessary.

Giving people a guaranteed income, said Istvan, would not create a class of “lazy” or entitled people, which has long been the argument against social welfare programs. “People that get a little money, in fact, become more prosperous - money has this habit of making people even more successful, as the majority of people will spend it on something that enhances their wealth, not on something frivolous, because they will want more.”

Instead of frittering their time away as these guaranteed checks come in, Istvan said many citizens would ask themselves, “Why should I be only working or middle class, when I could be upper middle class?” That's the argument behind the wildly successful earned income tax credit program.

As we wrapped up our interview, I quizzed Istvan about a similar proposal that has been floated in Washington, D.C.: a revenue-neutral carbon tax and dividend, recently endorsed by leading climate scientist James Hansen, which would pay a small amount annually to U.S. citizens. Istan has, after all, written for National Geographic in the past (he’s considered a global pioneer in the sport of volcano boarding) and is often described as an environmental journalist.

He was at most lukewarm about the idea. “I’m not sure that the government could pull this off, as their hands would be the pie,” he explained. “And decreasing the carbon footprint may not necessarily be helping the environment. But taking on measures to boost the economy, such as green engineering, nanotechnology and geoengineering, could help solve our problems. I’m a big believer in that we need more of these technologies, not less.”

Of course, many of these emerging technologies are years away from development. And as far as managing a universal basic income, California’s state government would have to manage the distribution of those funds, just as the Social Security Administration would have to collect and then redistribute a future carbon tax and dividend. But during our interview, Istvan made it clear the private sector, not the government, is the ticket to curing both this state’s and country’s social ills and environmental challenges.

This history of third parties in the U.S. is the biggest obstacle to Istvan’s candidacy. Over the years, both Democrats and Republicans have legislated themselves into power, making it difficult for third parties to break through. At best, a third party’s ideas are incorporated one of the two main parties: witness the populist People’s Party of the late 19th century; many of their ideas were adopted by the Democratic Party of William Jennings Bryan. Ross Perot’s demand for deficit reduction was coopted by Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. George Wallace’s presidential campaigns in 1968 and 1972 eventually became the tactics behind the Republican’s dominance of the presidency through the 1980s. And bottom line, the left will shudder at the thought of anything smacking of selling off public lands for private profit; the right will not stand for any form of income redistribution.

Nevertheless, 21st century problems require 21st century thinking; and if the major parties relented and granted Istvan a podium during next year’s gubernatorial debates, he certainly would be fascinating to watch. He’s engaging, optimistic and gregarious without being overbearing. Near-octogenarian Jerry Brown has arguably been a steady hand the past 6 years; but in this volatile era of Trump, anything can happen in next year’s campaign, even though the Republicans to date have no one, and the Democrats’ bench is full of names but thin on ideas.

Image credit: Zoltan Istvan